[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 209 (Wednesday, October 29, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56141-56145]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28135]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research and Special Programs Administration
49 CFR Part 195
[Docket No. RSPA-97-2362; Notice 1]
RIN 2137--AD05
Pipeline Safety: Incorporation by Reference of Industry Standard
on Leak Detection
AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to adopt as a referenced document an
industry publication for pipeline leak detection, API 1130,
``Computational Pipeline Monitoring,'' published by the American
Petroleum Institute (API). This proposal would require that an operator
of a hazardous liquid pipeline use API 1130 in conjunction with other
information, in designing, evaluating, operating, maintaining, and
testing its software-based leak detection system. The use of this
document will significantly advance the acceptance of leak detection
technology on hazardous liquid pipelines. However, RSPA is not
proposing to require operators to install such systems.
DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments in
duplicate by December 29, 1997. Late-filed comments will be considered
to the extent practicable. Interested persons should submit as part of
their written comments all the material that is relevant to any
statement of fact or argument.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to the Docket Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Comments should identify the docket number
(RSPA-97-2362) and the RSPA Rulemaking Number (2137-AD05). Commenters
should submit an original and one copy. Commenters wishing to receive
confirmation of receipt of their comments must include a stamped, self-
addressed postcard with their comments. The docket clerk will date
stamp the postcard and return it to the commenter. Comments will be
available for inspection at the Docket Facility, located on the plaza
level of the Nassif Building in Room 401. The Docket Facility is open
from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lloyd W. Ulrich, telephone:(202) 366-
4556, FAX: (202) 366-4566, e-mail:
[[Page 56142]]
[email protected] regarding the subject matter of this notice,
or Dockets Unit, (202) 366-5046, for copies of this notice or other
material in the docket.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Congressional Mandate and Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Congress, in section 212 of the Pipeline Safety Act of 1992
(codified at 49 U.S.C. 60102(j)), required the Secretary of
Transportation, by October 24, 1994, to survey and assess the
effectiveness of emergency flow restricting devices (EFRDs) and other
procedures, systems, and equipment used to detect and locate hazardous
liquid pipeline ruptures and minimize product releases from hazardous
liquid pipeline facilities. Congress further mandated that the
Secretary issue regulations two years after completing the survey and
assessment (no later than October 24, 1996). These regulations would
prescribe the circumstances under which operators of hazardous liquid
pipelines would use EFRDs or other procedures, systems, and equipment
used to detect and locate pipeline ruptures and minimize product
release from pipeline facilities 1. The Secretary delegated
this authority to the Research and Special Programs Administration
(RSPA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Proposed regulations on the circumstances where operators
would be required to use EFRDs and other equipment have been
postponed until a definition for areas unusually sensitive to
environmental damage, or USAs, is established, as discussed later in
this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To conduct the required survey, RSPA issued an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) (59 FR 2802, Jan. 19, 1994) to solicit
information from the public. The ANPRM contained questions directed
mostly to operators of hazardous liquid pipelines about operational
data and costs related to EFRDs and about the performance of leak
detection systems as another means to detect and locate hazardous
liquid pipeline ruptures and minimize product release. The ANPRM also
sought information to help determine which critical locations should be
protected from pipeline releases.
Nineteen comments were submitted in response to the ANPRM. Sixteen
comments were from hazardous liquid pipeline operators, two were from
leak detection vendors, and one was from the API. Commenters were
generally against requiring leak detection equipment and EFRDs. Ten of
the sixteen hazardous liquid operators responded with usable data.
B. Volpe Report
In response to a recommendation in an earlier Departmental report
2 dealing with pipeline EFRDs and leak detection, the Volpe
National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center) released a report
entitled ``Remote Control Spill Reduction Technology: A Survey and
Analysis of Applications for Liquid Pipeline Systems'' (September 29,
1996). The study looked at the pipeline industry overall and its
application of SCADA 3 and leak detection systems. The
report looked at several leak detection performance measures including
response time, false alarms, sensitivity, and leak location accuracy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A March 1991 Departmental report entitled ``Emergency Flow
Restricting Devices Study (A Study Mandated by Pub. L. 100-561)''
recommended that the Department conduct a research study on whether
SCADA systems, including well-designed leak detection subsystems,
should be required on hazardous liquid pipelines to enhance the safe
operation of the pipelines. RSPA contracted with the Volpe National
Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center) to conduct the study.
\3\ SCADA is an acronym for Supervisory Control and Data
Acquisition. SCADA systems utilize computer technology to
continuously gather data (e.g., pressure, temperature, and delivery
flow rates) from remote locations on the pipeline. Dispatchers use
SCADA systems to assist in day-to-day operating decisions on the
pipeline. SCADA systems can also provide input for real-time models
of the pipeline operation. Such models compare current operating
conditions with calculated data values. A deviation may indicate the
possibility of a leak.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The report contained conclusions on leak detection systems relevant
to this present rulemaking. One was that because of the pipeline
industry's diversity, each system used for leak detection must be
custom configured for a particular pipeline system. Another conclusion
was that SCADA and leak detection systems were dependent on the
sophistication of the host computer and how rapidly the host computer
can gather remote field data. The report found that operators have made
major investments in SCADA systems, but have invested much less in
software-based leak detection systems.
Another conclusion was the dispatcher who operates the pipeline
system was key to SCADA and leak detection systems operating
successfully. Most operators interviewed for the study believed that
dispatcher training and the dispatcher's ability to interpret the data
provided by the SCADA system were critical in reducing the number of
incidents and the volume of pipeline spills.
Finally, the report concluded that a SCADA system or a leak
detection system can be configured for most pipeline systems, but that
the high cost/benefit and the evolving technology of such systems has
slowed industry's adopting computer-based leak detection systems.
C. Public Workshop
RSPA wanted to accomplish the Congressional mandate consistent with
the President's policy (E.O. 12866) that regulations provide for public
safety and environmental protection at the least cost to society.
Toward this end, and because RSPA received limited data in response to
the ANPRM's questionnaire, RSPA held a public workshop on October 19,
1995, to obtain more data on EFRDs and leak detection systems. Two
formal presentations on leak detection were made at the workshop. One
was by Dr. Sherry Smith Borener from the Volpe Center, who presented
the preliminary results of the report discussed above, and the other
was by the American Petroleum Institute (API).
The Volpe Center report's finding that each leak detection system
is unique to the pipeline on which it is installed was confirmed at the
workshop. Industry expressed its desire to improve its leak detection
capability, its concern about releases to the environment, and its
dedication to automation. Also evident was that the hazardous liquid
pipeline industry is driven by cost control.
Discussions at the workshop included operational and economic
problems with leak detection systems. Participants said that many
dynamic factors, such as changes in product characteristics and
hydraulic transient conditions, can change a pipeline system's
operating characteristics and affect leak detection capability. Other
less frequent changes, such as the physical parameters of the pipeline
can also impact leak detection performance. Further, participants said
that leak detection systems increase a pipeline's overall maintenance,
such as equipment calibration checks and preventive maintenance, which
affects an operator's cost. Also, when equipment is down, leak
sensitivity may be impaired. Participants also said that a pipeline's
transient conditions adversely affect leak detection system
performance.
Also discussed were operational and economic benefits. Among these
benefits were that a leak detection system improves a pipeline's
everyday operation because the system allows the operator to collect
more usable operating data about the pipeline system, including data
from remote locations. Participants also said that a leak detection
system allows for faster leak detection, resulting in reduced commodity
loss, lower short-term cleanup costs from releases, and lower
[[Page 56143]]
long-term remediation costs. Participants noted that a leak's location
is secondary to confirming that a leak has occurred.
Discussions at the workshop brought out that a leak detection
system can result in a more rapid response to a leak. Participants said
that the simplest system can indicate large leaks, while detecting
smaller leaks depends on many factors including the dispatcher's
competency. Participants confirmed the Volpe study's conclusion that
dispatcher training is of paramount importance.
D. Definition for Areas Unusually Sensitive to Environmental Damage
Congress required that in prescribing standards, RSPA identify the
``circumstances'' where EFRDs and other equipment must be installed.
RSPA's current policy is to base regulations on risk assessment. RSPA
believes that a primary high risk circumstance would be where a
pipeline is located in an environmentally sensitive area. RSPA has been
conducting public workshops since 1995 to enable government and
industry to better understand the problems involved in identifying a
subset of such areas, areas unusually sensitive to environmental
damage, or USAs. RSPA expects to publish a NPRM proposing a definition
for USAs in the Spring of 1998.
Because of the ongoing regulatory effort to define USAs, RSPA has
decided to wait before issuing a NPRM proposing where leak detection
systems should be required.
E. Development of API 1130
In April 1994, the API formed a task force to develop a document on
computational pipeline monitoring (CPM). The task force produced API
1130, entitled ``Computational Pipeline Monitoring'' addressing the use
of software-based leak detection equipment. API 1130 defines
computational pipeline monitoring as ``an algorithmic monitoring tool
that allows the pipeline controller to respond to a pipeline operating
anomaly which may be indicative of a commodity release.'' As stated in
the document,
The purpose of this publication is to assist the pipeline
operator in the selection, implementation, testing, and operation of
a CPM system. When used in conjunction with other API publications,
this publication will prove useful to identify the complexities,
limitations and other implications of detecting anomalies on liquid
pipelines using CPM systems.
To gather data for a leak detection rulemaking, RSPA and Volpe
Center staff have monitored the task force's work. Minutes of task
force meetings, as well as copies of final drafts of the document, are
available in Docket No. PS-133.
II. Statement of the Problem and Proposed Solution
Pipeline safety regulations do not require hazardous liquid
pipeline operators to meet any leak detection system performance
standards. As mentioned before, a lack of a USA definition has delayed
RSPA proposing the circumstances where EFRDs and other equipment must
be installed on hazardous liquid pipeline systems. However, RSPA
believes it should not delay addressing the safety and environmental
advantages of using software-based leak detection technology to reduce
releases from pipeline ruptures. RSPA proposes to remedy this by
requiring operators to use API 1130 in operating, maintaining, and
testing their existing software-based leak detection systems and in
designing and installing new software-based leak detection systems or
replacing components of existing systems. RSPA is taking this action
for several reasons.
(1) RSPA monitored the development of API 1130 and its development
is well documented in Docket No. PS-133. The API task force members who
developed API 1130 are experts in the pipeline industry, well versed in
leak detection systems.
(2) Due to its comprehensiveness, API 1130 advances safety by
providing for more rapid detection of ruptures and response to those
ruptures, thus limiting releases of hazardous liquids.
(3) Adopting API 1130 complies with the spirit of the President's
initiative to reduce and simplify regulations by adopting industry
developed standards. Its adoption should not create controversy since
the pipeline industry, the primary user, developed the publication.
III. Role of the Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety
Standards Committee (THLPSSC)
The proposal to adopt API 1130 as a referenced document in 49 CFR
part 195 was brought before the THLPSSC at its meeting on November 6,
1996. The THLPSSC is a 15 member Congressionally mandated advisory
committee (49 U.S.C. 60115) responsible for reviewing proposed pipeline
safety standards for technical feasibility, reasonableness, and
practicability. The THLPSSC Chairperson appointed a three person
subcommittee to work with RSPA to provide technical expertise on the
feasibility of adopting API 1130 as a referenced standard in part 195.
The subcommittee met with RSPA and submitted to the THLPSSC Chairperson
the following recommendations, which THLPSSC accepted:
(1) API 1130 in its entirety should be referenced in 49 CFR part
195 regulations.
(2) The operations, maintenance, and testing portions of API
1130 should be applicable to all existing and newly installed
Computational Pipeline Monitoring (CPM) systems, and API 1130 in its
entirety should be applicable to all newly installed CPM systems or
replacement sections of existing CPM systems.
(3) Compliance with API 1130 should be within 12 months of
incorporation of this document into the part 195 regulations.
(4) If and when API 1130 is referenced in the part 195
regulations, the reference only applies to single phase liquid
pipelines (see Section 1.3 of API 1130, which limits the document's
application to single phase liquid pipelines).
(5) The preamble to the draft and final Part 195 rules should
state that the reference to API 1130 is a first step in meeting the
mandate of section 60102(j) of the federal pipeline safety law (49
U.S.C. 601), and is not intended to delay issuance of additional
requirements or actions under this section of the law.
RSPA agrees with these recommendations and has drafted this NPRM to
comply with them.
IV. Discussion of the Proposed Rule
This proposed rule would require an operator of a hazardous liquid
pipeline to comply with API 1130 in designing, operating, maintaining,
and testing the operator's software-based leak detection system.
Although the proposed rule does not require an operator to install a
software-based leak detection system, whenever such a leak detection
system is installed or a component replaced, API 1130 would have to be
followed. Likewise, each existing software-based leak detection system
would have to comply with the operating, maintenance, testing, and
training provisions of API 1130.
To be consistent with the scope limitations of Section 1.3 in API
1130, the proposed regulation limits API 1130 applicability to single
phase, liquid pipelines. Pipelines transporting both gas and liquid,
called dual phase pipelines, are prevalent in offshore operations where
the gas and liquid stream is transported by pipeline to onshore
facilities where it is more economical to separate the gas and liquid
for further transport. Designing a leak detection system for such a
pipeline is extremely complex because of the different physical and
chemical characteristics of gas and liquid.
[[Page 56144]]
1. Proposed additions to Sec. 195.2 Definitions: The term
``computational pipeline monitoring'' which has not been used in 49 CFR
part 195, would be added to the list of definitions in Sec. 195.2. The
proposed definition is identical to API 1130's definition except that
the term ``monitoring tool'' is modified to ``software-based monitoring
tool.'' RSPA is also replacing the term ``controller'' with
``dispatcher'' as dispatcher is the term presently used in the pipeline
safety regulations.
2. Proposed addition to Sec. 195.3 Matters incorporated by
reference: RSPA will propose that API 1130 be added as one of the
referenced API publications under Sec. 195.3(c)(2).
3. Proposed new section Sec. 195.134 CPM leak detection systems:
RSPA will propose a new section in Subpart C--Design Requirements, to
require that whenever an operator installs a CPM leak detection system,
that the operator design it according to the design requirements of API
1130. The proposed new section also requires that each component
replaced on an existing system be designed in accordance to the design
requirements of API 1130. This conforms to the THLPSSC recommendation
that both newly installed CPM systems and replacement sections of
existing CPM systems follow API 1130.
4. Proposed new section Sec. 195.444 CPM leak detection systems:
RSPA proposes a new section in Subpart F-Operation and Maintenance, to
require each operator who has a CPM leak detection system to follow API
1130 in the operation, maintenance, and testing of the system.
Regulatory Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This proposed rule is not considered a significant action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and is not considered significant
under the Department of Transportation Policies and Procedures (44 FR
11034, Feb. 26, 1979). This proposal is to adopt an industry document,
API 1130. Adopting API 1130 should result in leak detection systems
that allow for faster leak detection, resulting in reduced commodity
loss, lower short-term cleanup costs from releases, and lower long-term
remediation costs. The Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety
Standards Committee (THLPSSC) recommended that we adopt the document
into part 195. This proposal does not require an operator to adopt a
computational pipeline monitoring system (CPM) if the operator does not
already have one. It only requires that if an operator has such a
system that the operator follow this document. This document represents
good industry practices. Conversations with officials of the API
confirm that the vast majority of the industry that uses CPM already
has adopted these practices.
Because RSPA is not mandating the use of CPM and is simply adopting
the practices already instituted and developed by industry, RSPA
believes that the cost of this regulation will be minimal. Therefore,
RSPA believes that a regulatory evaluation of this proposal is not
necessary.
Nonetheless, RSPA does not have good data on any potential costs
that this proposal would have on industry. RSPA is soliciting
information on costs, if any, of referencing API 1130. Please send cost
information to the Department of Transportation Docket Office listed in
the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
As discussed above RSPA is not requiring that operators install CPM
but simply requiring that where hazardous liquid operators have such a
system that they meet the standards industry developed. As stated
above, most operators with such systems already comply with these
requirements. Therefore, based on the facts available, I certify
pursuant to section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
605) that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
C. Federalism Assessment
The proposed rulemaking action would not have substantial direct
effects on states, on the relationship between the Federal Government
and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with
Executive Order 12612 (52 FR 41685, Oct. 30, 1987), RSPA has determined
that this notice does not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
D. Unfunded Mandates
This proposed rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It does not result in costs of
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, and is the least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objective of the rule.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
There are minimal record keeping requirements included in
API 1130 on testing and retesting of each CPM. However, as
discussed above, this proposal does not require an operator to have a
CPM. API 1130 was developed by the industry, and the vast majority of
the industry that uses CPM already has adopted the practices in API
1130. Because the record keeping requirements represent the usual and
customary practices of the industry, there is minimal paperwork burden
on the public. Nevertheless, RSPA prepared a paperwork analysis for
this proposed rule and submitted it to the Office of Management and
Budget(OMB) for review. The paperwork analysis for this proposed
regulation is available for review at the Docket Office, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Plaza 401, 400 Seventh St. SW,
Washington, DC. Comments on the paperwork burden of this proposed
regulation can be submitted within 60 days of the publication of this
notice to Office of Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, 726 Jackson Place, NW Washington, DC 20503 ATTN.: Desk Officer
for the Department of Transportation, RSPA. Please send a duplicate
copy of comments to the Docket Office, U.S. Department of
Transportation Plaza 401, 400 Seventh St. SW, Washington, DC 20590-
0001, identifying the RSPA Docket Number (RSPA-97-2362) and the RSPA
Rulemaking Number (2137-AD05). Comments are invited on: (a) The need
for the proposed collection of information for the proper performance
of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the proposed collection of information including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance
the quality utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d) ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on those
who respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 195
Ammonia, Carbon dioxide, Petroleum, Pipeline safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, RSPA proposes to amend 49 CFR
part 195 as follows:
[[Page 56145]]
PART 195--TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS LIQUIDS BY PIPELINE
1. The authority citation for Part 195 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60118;
and 49 CFR 1.53.
Subpart A--General
2. Section 195.2 would be amended by adding the definition for
Computational Pipeline Monitoring to read as follows:
Sec. 195.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Computation Pipeline Monitoring (CPM) means a software-based
monitoring tool that allows the pipeline dispatcher to respond to a
pipeline operating anomaly that may be indicative of a commodity
release.
* * * * *
3. Section 195.3 would be amended by redesignating paragraphs
(c)(2)(i) through (c)(2)(iii), as paragraphs (c)(2)(ii) through
(c)(2)(iv), and adding a new paragraph (c)(2)(i) to read as follows:
Sec. 195.3 Matter incorporated by reference.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) API 1130 ``Computational Pipeline Monitoring'' (1st Edition,
1995).
* * * * *
Subpart C--Design Requirements
4. Section 195.134 would be added to read as follows:
Sec. 195.134 CPM leak detection.
This section applies to each hazardous liquid pipeline transporting
liquid in single phase (without gas in the liquid). On such systems,
each new computational pipeline monitoring (CPM) leak detection system
that will be installed and each replaced component of an existing CPM
system must comply with the selection criteria of section 4.2 of API
1130 in its design and with any other design criteria addressed in API
1130 for components of the CPM leak detection system.
Subpart F--Operation and Maintenance
5. Section 195.444 would be added to read as follows:
Sec. 195.444 CPM leak detection.
Each computational pipeline monitoring (CPM) leak detection system
installed on a hazardous liquid pipeline transporting liquid in single
phase (without gas in the liquid) must comply with API 1130 in
operating, maintaining, testing, record keeping, and dispatcher
training of the system.
Issued in Washington, DC, on October 20, 1997.
Richard B. Felder,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 97-28135 Filed 10-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P